SoTD: Bargnani's defensive numbers over 4 years

[MikeM]

I haven't read much of this thread but I think it can be summed up by saying Bargnani is a PF and not a C. If he was at PF no one would complain about him. He's a good PF and a bad C. Pretty simple.

[BorisDK1]

So when opposing teams run handoff P&R sets with their shooting guard, pf, and c like in the example I posted a page ago? How does that great defensive PG help defend the options that creates without leaving his man wide open?

It's just common sense that your PF and/or C are going to be involved in way more defensive situations and are responsible for much more on the defensive side of the ball than the guards are, hence the impact a PFs and/or Cs on the overall defense of the team (whether it be a bad or good impact).

This isn't that complicated. It's well known that the game of basketball is played from the inside/out. If your bigs can't defend the basket, your guards are forced to "pack the paint", "gang rebound" and generally help out inside. When they do that and the ball is kicked out:

1. many more open looks as the guard defender has much more distance to get to the shooter.
2. many more blow-bys as the defender has to run out at the offensive player and is more suseptible to getting taken off the drible.
3. confusion on defense as to who is to rotate where on kickouts as they are "helping" on the inside.

You can't pressure an offensive player when you have to give him 10 ft. to help your big men inside because they struggle with their rotations, they can't hold post positioin and are poor defensive rebounders. (again, not specifically talking about Bargs here, just any big that struggles with any/all of these things and what impact it has on the other 4 teamates on the floor).

I agree with your analysis of those specific plays, but I think you're erring a little.

Firstly, it's well-known that on the defensive end, you build your defense from guarding the ball, not the other way around. Everything else that you do to support the ball, whether you use the standard packline or you're extending your defense, is secondary. The key to all defensive play is the ability to pressure the basketball without getting beaten. How you make that work and how you support that is up to the coaching staff with their understanding of their talent at their disposal.

Secondly, disparaging "packing the paint" is a little mystifying to me. Why wouldn't you, when you have a 24-second shot clock at your disposal? It doesn't negate anything you can do defensively, either: the 2003-4 Raptors had a suspect bunch of defenders and packed the paint tons - 7th best defensive team that year. It allows you to protect the boards, it allows you to force the opponents to work late into the shot clock to get a good shot, etc. I don't see it forcing anything all that difficult: defenders have plenty of time to close out to the perimeter under control if they execute properly and move on the air time of the basketball instead of on the catch.

All defenses require rotation and help to the interior. How you get that done and make that look may vary (on my team, we use a hybrid approach of UTL-OTL and a packline with certain rules I won't make public) but the fact remains it's a constant in defensive basketball. I don't understand your criticism, here. It just seems very unfair.

[supersub15]

I'm not going to retort with breaking down other elements of help defense other than help on dribble drives, even though there is far more to off-ball defense than that. I'll agree that we're going to have to learn to synthesize and not antagonize these metrics, but also learn to obey laws of logic (like, post hoc, ergo propter hoc = fallacy) .

Yes, I plan on doing PDSS again this year. Some games are often a little late getting posted because I'm busy and have to go back through the PVR to do so, but all 82 games (plus playoffs, if necessary) should get done, God willing.

The stats I used are far from being a coincidental correlation. There are far more evidence that I haven't used, stuff like APM (which teams are actually starting to use), Wages of Wins (which put Bargnani as the worst defender in the league), and others. You seem to want to disregard them as well.

In any case, looking forward to further contributions from you on this board. Been a pleasure.

[Tony_Montana]

I haven't read much of this thread but I think it can be summed up by saying Bargnani is a PF and not a C. If he was at PF no one would complain about him. He's a good PF and a bad C. Pretty simple.

No it can't. "I haven't read much of this thread but I think it can be summed up by..." is my new go to line when I enter a thread and I have NO idea wtf is going on. LOL.

[MikeM]

I haven't read much of this thread but I think it can be summed up by saying Bargnani is a PF and not a C. If he was at PF no one would complain about him. He's a good PF and a bad C. Pretty simple.

No it can't. "I haven't read much of this thread but I think it can be summed up by..." is my new go to line when I enter a thread and I have NO idea wtf is going on. LOL.

lol like these Bargs threads are ever any different.

[Indeed]

I haven't read much of this thread but I think it can be summed up by saying Bargnani is a PF and not a C. If he was at PF no one would complain about him. He's a good PF and a bad C. Pretty simple.

No it can't. "I haven't read much of this thread but I think it can be summed up by..." is my new go to line when I enter a thread and I have NO idea wtf is going on. LOL.

Indeed, both PF and C (bigs) shared some of the similar responsibilities on the defensive end.
There are things Bargnani needs to improve in order be a good defender (eg. rebounding, weak side help, etc).

But to blame it all on Bargnani is just unfair to me. And playing with the right teammates, he might able to hide some of his problems (eg. late on recognizing, fighting for positions, etc.). Besides, help defense can improve from experience, as long as it is not a physical thing (although mentality is hard to change, but still better than physical factors).

[BorisDK1]

The stats I used are far from being a coincidental correlation. There are far more evidence that I haven't used, stuff like APM (which teams are actually starting to use), Wages of Wins (which put Bargnani as the worst defender in the league), and others. You seem to want to disregard them as well.

In any case, looking forward to further contributions from you on this board. Been a pleasure.

I think we all know what to do with Berri's stuff, there. No disrespect to the man, but he's a sports economist, not a basketball analyst.

APM has similar problems. How do you adjust? Not all APM ideas are the same. All of them have "noise" to some extent or other. I have no problem looking at them, but the key is not to look at a single stat and think that it's going to work in isolation from what's going on on the basketball floor. That's a Dean Oliver truism that probably needs to be remembered. Stats are there to provoke questions, not give answers, and help to inform the answers (not provide them in isolation). Another Dean Oliver truism: your eyes interpret the game better than stats, but stats see every game whereas your eyes cannot.

[MikeM]

Bargnani sucks on defence. The most important defensive position is C. Don't play him at C. Problem solved. There are lots of good NBAers who suck on defence. Just play him at PF and his **** defence means less overall.

[Schad]

Right, but I wasn't talking about shutting down the opposing point guard. "Limiting his options" entails everything you listed up top. And nowhere did I state that help defense is secondary - it is, like you say, a vital aspect of defending primary ballhandlers on the perimeter.

But the onus is on the perimeter defenders - especially the ones guarding the primary ballhandlers - to make sure that their man is sufficiently disrupted so that when the help arrives, it's actually helpful. There's a difference between an offensive player who has been steered towards a disadvantageous position, and one who has met little to no resistance and puts your help defence at a disadvantage instead.

Definitely, and our perimeter defense is flawed. But the inability of certain players to close out plays properly leads to all sorts of breakdowns, including what Local_NG states: with suspect interior players and an equally suspect system, we collapse everyone into the paint at the first hint of penetration, which leads to a scramble and open shooters.

Our games against the LeBron-led Cavs were always really instructive in that regard. Yeah, no one player is going to shut down LeBron at the point of attack. And no center, great or awful, is going to be able to close him out every time. But we were so tragic when it came to even contesting his layups that they won more than a couple games in big comebacks, using the same formula: LeBron takes a first step, the wings begin collapsing, LeBron hits Damon Jones/Sasha Pavlovic/Mo Williams/Scrubby Wing X with a simple pass, and the recipient drains the three. Over and over and over again, all because our interior defense was so woeful that we were dropping three or four players into the lane the second he beat the initial defender, because the alternative was that he'd take two more steps for an uncontested dunk.

[BorisDK1]

Indeed, both PF and C (bigs) shared some of the similar responsibility on the defensive end.
There are things Bargnani needs to improve in order be a good defender (eg. rebounding, weak side help, etc).

But to blame it all at Bargnani is just unfair to me. And playing with the right teammates, he might able to hide some of his problem (eg. late on recognizing, fighting for positions, etc.). Besides, help defense can improve from experience, as long as it is not a physical thing (although mentality is hard to change, but still better than physical factors).

I'm not all that interested in being fair to Bargnani. He simply has to be far better to justify being on this team going forward.

I think he has both physical and mental deficiencies: he's slow physically, he can't jump, his strength is in question, his ability to recognize and communicate is highly suspect at times, etc. I thought this summer he should have foregone Italian NT and spent his time in the gym, getting stronger, faster, more powerful jumper. That didn't happen, and frankly as a result I'm not expecting much improvement.

[Indeed]

Indeed, both PF and C (bigs) shared some of the similar responsibility on the defensive end.
There are things Bargnani needs to improve in order be a good defender (eg. rebounding, weak side help, etc).

But to blame it all at Bargnani is just unfair to me. And playing with the right teammates, he might able to hide some of his problem (eg. late on recognizing, fighting for positions, etc.). Besides, help defense can improve from experience, as long as it is not a physical thing (although mentality is hard to change, but still better than physical factors).

I'm not all that interested in being fair to Bargnani. He simply has to be far better to justify being on this team going forward.

I think he has both physical and mental deficiencies: he's slow physically, he can't jump, his strength is in question, his ability to recognize and communicate is highly suspect at times, etc. I thought this summer he should have foregone Italian NT and spent his time in the gym, getting stronger, faster, more powerful jumper. That didn't happen, and frankly as a result I'm not expecting much improvement.

I agree. I don't think he is slow nor can't jump, I think he just lack the strength and willingness to use 100% of his talent. I also have concern for him going against quicker PFs, as he showed his reaction and positioning are weak.

But giving the chance to play in NT, maybe he can pick up his confidence as our first option.
Other than defense, my concern includes our offensive end; and definitely, the team management is concern about the financial aspect, where we are desperately need an offensive player for marketing and other purpose.

[OvertimeNO]

Right, but I wasn't talking about shutting down the opposing point guard. "Limiting his options" entails everything you listed up top. And nowhere did I state that help defense is secondary - it is, like you say, a vital aspect of defending primary ballhandlers on the perimeter.

But the onus is on the perimeter defenders - especially the ones guarding the primary ballhandlers - to make sure that their man is sufficiently disrupted so that when the help arrives, it's actually helpful. There's a difference between an offensive player who has been steered towards a disadvantageous position, and one who has met little to no resistance and puts your help defence at a disadvantage instead.

Definitely, and our perimeter defense is flawed. But the inability of certain players to close out plays properly leads to all sorts of breakdowns, including what Local_NG states: with suspect interior players and an equally suspect system, we collapse everyone into the paint at the first hint of penetration, which leads to a scramble and open shooters.

Our games against the LeBron-led Cavs were always really instructive in that regard. Yeah, no one player is going to shut down LeBron at the point of attack. And no center, great or awful, is going to be able to close him out every time. But we were so tragic when it came to even contesting his layups that they won more than a couple games in big comebacks, using the same formula: LeBron takes a first step, the wings begin collapsing, LeBron hits Damon Jones/Sasha Pavlovic/Mo Williams/Scrubby Wing X with a simple pass, and the recipient drains the three. Over and over and over again, all because our interior defense was so woeful that we were dropping three or four players into the lane the second he beat the initial defender, because the alternative was that he'd take two more steps for an uncontested dunk.

But again, it's not about shutting the guy down - it's about making his life at least somewhat difficult. If it is considered good defence to have to rely on your help to bail you out Every. Single. Play. then guys like Battier, Artest, et al wouldn't be held in such high esteem.

Edit: We're just arguing in circles, I think. You say our perimeter D sucked even more because of our garbage interior D. I say the opposite. I think the only way this argument gets resolved is we ever develop above average D in either area. Ideally, D improves substantially in both areas, and we won't have to argue at all.

[Kevin Willis]

His improvement will largely depend on the schemes used plus he will be forced to carry a load. If he wants he can be pretty unstopable on offense and Reggie Evans/Johnson front court will be the physicality he'll need.

P'n'Rs with Amir and Bargs on the outside may be deadly. Give up the drive or the open J. Schemes may give Bargs a great year - if you trust JT?

[Reg00]

Well I think we'll be okay guys!

According to 82games.com, It seems a couple of our top lines didn't even have Bosh, and used Bargnani in them.

-66% winning with Caldy/Weems/Turk/Amir/Bargs (also had 2nd best +/- at 20)
-71% with Jack/Belli/Turk/Amir/Bargs (If you replace Bosh with Bargs in this line up it drops to a 57%)

Also it seems with Bargs is the clutch (4th quarter), he shoots it pretty well and we'd have a 60% win chance with him taking it. (+49 as opposed to +38 for Bosh)

Thank god for these stats or I would really be worrying about the Raps record (maybe green font required). So yeah, 60 win season anyone? Too bad we lost Turk this offseason...

If these stats have been posted on this thread before hand I apologize. It's a pretty big SoTD thread.

[Local_NG_Idiot]

At this point I feel better backing away from specific accusations about GSW's defense and how they played, since I only saw them play twice. I don't know how often you saw them. I know they had a lot of injuries and went really, really small to favour their offense. I can only judge by what I see statistically, and that's only going to take us so far.

I watch far too much basketball to the point of my own detriment (done that for years now). I watched enough GSW games to have a good assessment of the team and of Randolph. Randolph to this point is much like Bargs defensively. Good in certain aspects but weak in others (good weakside help, good offensive rebounder, average defensive rebounder as he gets pushed under the bucket, and a poor post defender). Again, he didn’t play enough this season to have an overall impact on the team defense since he was injured. Is he Potentially a very good defender? He definitely has the toolset, then again I thought Bosh as a rookie and sophomore had the toolset to be very good as well.

I'm not arguing that at all, I'm simply arguing the ability of a good defensive big man to negate complete incompetence around him is next to nil except for the most rare players of all time, whom we can probably count on the fingers of one hand.

Agreed. I use them as the example of impact from big men position to emphasize my POV of big men that can affect the game at that level. How many have there been? It’s subjective, but I could at least name 3-4 per generation. (current: Howard, Bogut, and Bynum & Oden if healthy), (1 generation back: Duncan, Garnett, Mourning, Ben Wallace) and (2 generations back: Dream, Mutombo, Rodman, Robinson).

Are good perimeter players absolutely dead without a good defensive big man behind them? Not necessarily. Is that hard to do without a good big man behind them? Yes, but not impossible.

Agreed again, but can a good perimeter player have the same defensive team impact that a good defensive big has? I don’t think they can since again, the majority of a teams’ offense is initiated inside (by either post up, or dribble penetration) where in both cases the big is involved in defending which in turn means he’s responsible for more defensive assignments. Yes, in both of those cases the perimeter player is involved (by either pressuring the passer on post entry, or defending the drive or P&R) which I do agree with your point of being able to defend the initial point of attack, but that initial point of attack can come from 3-4 different positions (which that good perimeter player can only defend 1 of).

Dalembert (OK 1 decent inside presence, they also have some very, very good perimeter defenders AI2, Young and Holiday. I guess we can agree to blame Kapono here).

LOL

Figured we needed a joke in this discussion 

Chicago was still a good defensive team, then, though. They were the second-best defensive team in the NBA in 1994-95, with Jordan only playing 15 games, no Horace Grant, no Bil Cartwright, no Dennis Rodman, and lots of Toni Kukoc...

you're deffering the arguement that you can get away with incompetent big man defenders if your perimeter players play pressure defense.

And you're backing away from the argument that almost no big men can make bad perimeter defense look passable.

But it wasn’t a miniscule jump in defense from 2nd to 1st between 95 and 96. DRtg went from 104.3 to 101.8. DRB% went from .682 to .711 and yet their forced turnovers dropped (by a couple of points but not a significant), and they cut down on their fouls 3.5/fta per game. So even though their ranking only went up one spot, that jump was an extremely significant jump up.

Well, as stated repeatedly, Bargnani does a couple of things well, and a couple of things poorly. Jose does nothing well on the defensive end of the floor and exerts little effort trying. I'd prefer to see them both upgraded, but as to the most pressing need I think it has to be Calderon. You can't have one guy compromising everything you're trying to do and think big men are going to make that look all that great. I'd rather have a guy who can't protect his teammates than a guy who endangers his teammates at every action, IMO.

Believe me, I’m not advocating in moving Bargnani just yet for some defensive center and I am on board with moving Calderon first. But it isn’t primarily for the defensive reasons and philosophy that you support.

By the way, so far you are my favourite person to discuss with on this site because it is evident that you know the game. And I appreciate that you're not trying to base everything you believe completely divorced from what happens on the basketball floor.

The feeling is mutual here. It’s refreshing to get a well thought out rebuttal where the discussion doesn’t quickly downgrade into the usual summer banter from most. Regardless of whether we agree or not, I do understand your point of view and can respect the ideals you present which I don’t completely disagree with when applied to the Raps at this juncture, however it’s the underlying philosophies of how good defense is implemented where we differ.

[Local_NG_Idiot]

But again, it's not about shutting the guy down - it's about making his life at least somewhat difficult. If it is considered good defence to have to rely on your help to bail you out Every. Single. Play. then guys like Battier, Artest, et al wouldn't be held in such high esteem.

Edit: We're just arguing in circles, I think. You say our perimeter D sucked even more because of our garbage interior D. I say the opposite. I think the only way this argument gets resolved is we ever develop above average D in either area. Ideally, D improves substantially in both areas, and we won't have to argue at all.

Go back a couple of pages and watch the 2 youtube videos I posted where Orlando, very early in both games runs the same play. Carter is the initial point in the offensive set that needs to be directed/contained. In set plays & P&Rs like these, it cannot be the primary defenders responsibility to direct the ball carrier.

Watch the subtle differences in how Garnett/Perkins handle it vs. Bosh/Bargs. Perkins (like Boris states) applies the type of ball pressure that forces Carter to take an extra dribble. That extra dribble is the key to allowing the entire defense the proper amount of time to recover.

P&R situations and plays like these are run constantly throughout games in an attempt to give the ball handler an advantage where his defender doesn't have the opportunity to direct him somewhere. And 9 times out of 10 it's the bigs that have to adjust, help, and then recover to their primary man.

[BorisDK1]

Go back a couple of pages and watch the 2 youtube videos I posted where Orlando, very early in both games runs the same play. Carter is the initial point in the offensive set that needs to be directed/contained. In set plays & P&Rs like these, it cannot be the primary defenders responsibility to direct the ball carrier.

Watch the subtle differences in how Garnett/Perkins handle it vs. Bosh/Bargs. Perkins (like Boris states) applies the type of ball pressure that forces Carter to take an extra dribble. That extra dribble is the key to allowing the entire defense the proper amount of time to recover.

P&R situations and plays like these are run constantly throughout games in an attempt to give the ball handler an advantage where his defender doesn't have the opportunity to direct him somewhere. And 9 times out of 10 it's the bigs that have to adjust, help, and then recover to their primary man.

In a high ball screen, you're absolutely correct. On a side ball screen, xballhandler can jump to the top side of the screen to "down" the ballhandler away from the screen, probably towards a trap or something that might eventually become a trap. That's something I like to do, personally. It stays consistent with wanting to turn ballhandlers into pressured drivers into help.

One thing missing from the person you responded to's presentation is the fact that it is the screener's defender who calls the screen and orders whatever coverage is going to be used: "Blitz right!" "Down!" "Hedge right!" "Jam right!" "Switch left!" - whatever language the team chooses to use. It is always on the screener to direct the coverage, because only he can see the play.

This doesn't apply to dribble-handoffs, where the screener is the dribbler, whose defender cannot see behind him most of the time.

[OvertimeNO]

But again, it's not about shutting the guy down - it's about making his life at least somewhat difficult. If it is considered good defence to have to rely on your help to bail you out Every. Single. Play. then guys like Battier, Artest, et al wouldn't be held in such high esteem.

Edit: We're just arguing in circles, I think. You say our perimeter D sucked even more because of our garbage interior D. I say the opposite. I think the only way this argument gets resolved is we ever develop above average D in either area. Ideally, D improves substantially in both areas, and we won't have to argue at all.

Go back a couple of pages and watch the 2 youtube videos I posted where Orlando, very early in both games runs the same play. Carter is the initial point in the offensive set that needs to be directed/contained. In set plays & P&Rs like these, it cannot be the primary defenders responsibility to direct the ball carrier.

Watch the subtle differences in how Garnett/Perkins handle it vs. Bosh/Bargs. Perkins (like Boris states) applies the type of ball pressure that forces Carter to take an extra dribble. That extra dribble is the key to allowing the entire defense the proper amount of time to recover.

P&R situations and plays like these are run constantly throughout games in an attempt to give the ball handler an advantage where his defender doesn't have the opportunity to direct him somewhere. And 9 times out of 10 it's the bigs that have to adjust, help, and then recover to their primary man.

On the particular play you've chosen, we had three opportunities to recover: 1) Bargnani impeding Carter's drive to the basket. While the ultimate goal of the play appears to be getting Lewis a three point shot, you don't want to give up the lane easily. 2) Bosh contesting Lewis' shot. He got out quickly enough to prevent the shot, although even a little more ball pressure may have prevented the failure at 3) Howard sealing Bargnani and getting the quick pass from Lewis, to take place.

So Orlando executed, and we were unable to recover adequately. I never said our defensive rotations or interior defense were good.

But you know what? I can live with giving up a basket at the end of a well-executed offensive set, because it means you forced the opposing team to execute. If we're forcing them to have to rely on offensive sets that require multiple players making the correct play, then it means you're giving yourself opportunities to force mistakes. Even average defenders are capable of salvaging the defensive possession some of the time.

On the other hand, if my perimeter guys are getting beaten off the dribble with very little resistance, it puts the rest of the team at a severe disadvantage from the get go. That's why when we were running with Marcus Freaking Banks as our backup PG while Calderon was out, our defense wasn't the atrocity it was the rest of the season. The only - ONLY - ways you can recover from a blow-by is with a block or a foul. And I'd argue that watching a dude get repeatedly owned on the outside will affect a team's defensive mindset just as severely as watching a guy get dominated on the inside.

[Local_NG_Idiot]

In a high ball screen, you're absolutely correct. On a side ball screen, xballhandler can jump to the top side of the screen to "down" the ballhandler away from the screen, probably towards a trap or something that might eventually become a trap. That's something I like to do, personally. It stays consistent with wanting to turn ballhandlers into pressured drivers into help.

Which is exactly what Turk and Allen both do in those plays, they stay with Carter to look to trap and play the passing lane back up top to Lewis. Bargs didn't push hard enough to force Carter further out.

One thing missing from the person you responded to's presentation is the fact that it is the screener's defender who calls the screen and orders whatever coverage is going to be used: "Blitz right!" "Down!" "Hedge right!" "Jam right!" "Switch left!" - whatever language the team chooses to use. It is always on the screener to direct the coverage, because only he can see the play.

This doesn't apply to dribble-handoffs, where the screener is the dribbler, whose defender cannot see behind him most of the time.

And that screener's defender is more often than not one of the defending bigs. Which does add another role to their plate on directing the perimeter pressure and defense as to where they want to go. The NBA game is so much faster that poor read-and-react bigs can struggle with this for years in getting quick enough to be able to read the offensive set and decide in that split second how a) they are going to defend it and b) how they would like the perimeter defender in front of them to defend it.

To OvertimeNO
The ultimate goal of that play that early in the game is to get Howard a touch right in front of the rim. Go back and watch again, Lewis never gets into a shooting stance with the ball in the ready position. Instead, in one motion he takes one big step to his left to gain enough angle away from Bosh for the entry pass to Howard. That was a well excuted play because of a poor defensive effort from Bosh and Bargs for the reasons I already went into.

In the Boston clip, again Lewis never threatened to score, but because Perkins and Allen forced Carter into an extra dribble to the strong side of the court, Lewis had to drift closer to the top of the key to give Carter the angle to get the ball back up top. Notice how Garnett is already out of the key before the ball has left Carter's hands but Carter has already committed to passing to Lewis. Perkins recovers on Howard, doesn't allow himself to be sealed off and Garnett has closed on Rashard and taken away his angles. Lewis goes over the top where Garnett is able to get a deflection (the most underated untracked defensive play out there).

Having Marcus Banks guarding Nelson in the corner instead of Jose has zero impact on the outcome of offensive sets that get run a lot throughout games. It's why teams like Atlanta continue to get away with hiding the defensively challenged like Bibby, and why later in the season you saw Weems switched off on the offensive initiator while Jose was covering the corner shooters.

[BorisDK1]

Which is exactly what Turk and Allen both do in those plays, they stay with Carter to look to trap and play the passing lane back up top to Lewis. Bargs didn't push hard enough to force Carter further out.

Well, that was a high ball screen and you really can't down anybody there. And xscreener has to make a decision: "can I get there in time to hedge, or can't I?" Sometimes for whatever unfortunate reason(s), xscreener just can't get out over top of the screen in time and it would just expose your entire team to badness if he were to try. And that's okay, as long as he communicates that to the ballhandler. The Raptors used a really odd rotation where they tried to cover all three players involved in the double staggered ball screen using only a strong-side rotation. I'd imagine that wasn't quite what Triano had in mind. It seemed that the communication was lacking, but the understanding of whom exactly is responsible to rotate in those situations (it's normally the rotator, the bottom of the helpside-I - Jack, in this case) to cover the rolling screener was completely lacking. Without the benefit of a microphone, just watching that I can guess that there was next to zero communication. That's selfish basketball.

And that screener's defender is more often than not one of the defending bigs. Which does add another role to their plate on directing the perimeter pressure and defense as to where they want to go. The NBA game is so much faster that poor read-and-react bigs can struggle with this for years in getting quick enough to be able to read the offensive set and decide in that split second how a) they are going to defend it and b) how they would like the perimeter defender in front of them to defend it.

95% of the time, yes. And usually (even though the perception of the big, dumb post player remains) it's the perimeter players failing to execute that causes complete breakdowns in screen coverage, IMO. Lack of communication is almost always on the big, lack of execution is usually on the smaller players. That's my experience with the game.